IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dcrup] rsa-sha1 proposals

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 20 June 2017 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A5AB1294E2 for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CpZCTnAWVreb for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (w6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::4945:4343]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 705641294C8 for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 80884 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2017 23:07:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 20 Jun 2017 23:07:03 -0000
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 23:06:41 -0000
Message-ID: <20170620230641.18814.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dcrup@ietf.org
Cc: kurta@drkurt.com
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1q66gCCVeurfdV3qF3yvKyL8PbBoW5D94mvNNatVtRT+g@mail.gmail.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dcrup/fC869B_VMVjUO8CP904AY-HJT6s>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] rsa-sha1 proposals
X-BeenThere: dcrup@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DKIM Crypto Update <dcrup.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrup/>
List-Post: <mailto:dcrup@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 23:07:06 -0000

In article <CABuGu1q66gCCVeurfdV3qF3yvKyL8PbBoW5D94mvNNatVtRT+g@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>I'm in favor of moving strongly and clearly to kill sha1, but what about
>moving it out to the registry with a dated "MUST NOT".

Back in 2007 RFC 4871 said "In general, sha256 should always be used
whenever possible."  I think people have had enough warning, and if we
want to kill it, we should just kill it.

>The other
>advantage is that it provides a stronger historical record that people can
>point to when explaining brain-deadness to people who have not updated :-)

Having known too many of those people, a document that says anything less
than "do not use SHA-1 for any reason, ever" will be interpreted as see,
we don't have to change.

R's,
John

v2.43.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status